User talk:Samohtm

Not a change log
Hello, Samohtm

I am calling you about one of your recent contributions (more specifically revision 693006842) in OwnCloud article. Unfortunately, this contribution cannot be accepted according to one of Wikipedia's core policies: Wikipedia is not a change log; a list of dates and version numbers are only and only acceptable when they back actual content on those versions up. In case of OwnCloud, there was no actual contents.

You might, however, be wondering: What about other tables like ? If you look at this particular example carefully, you see that each version number is linked to actual contents via a Wikilink.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for letting me know and for having provided an explanation (and not just "doesn't comply with NOTCHANGELOG policy"). However, I am very surprised by this decision. This kind of table allows readers to understand the life cycle of the project (how often are major and minor versions released, which version is supported etc.). Furthermore, the example you provided, Ubuntu, seems to be the exception rather than the rule, since other popular GNU/Linux distros have very similar tables, such as :
 * OpenSUSE
 * SUSE_Linux_distributions
 * Fedora_(operating_system)
 * Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux
 * List_of_Linux_Mint_releases
 * Mageia
 * List_of_Debian_releases
 * Slackware
 * There might be a subtle difference between these tables and the one I added on the OwnCloud article, but I don't see it. Could you explain it to me, please ? What would be the minimum viable changes to have this kind of table accepted ?


 * Regards,


 * Samohtm (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again.
 * Actually, why don't we look more carefully at the examples you provided?
 * 👍 is a summary of  . Remember what I wrote above? "a list of dates and version numbers are only and only acceptable when they back actual content on those versions up".
 * 👎 is definitely problematic. Even without WP:NOTCHANGELOG, I don't see a wisdom in table and so much spam-like content (external links and such). I see the OpenSUSE table is copied and pasted there wholesale.
 * 👎 is again problematic but because of its version to kernel and version to GNOME mapping, it is in a way crudely adding contents. If I was active in that area, I'd use this lead to expand the article. (Maybe they are low on editors there?)
 * , is okay, like item #1. It is small table supporting a small amount of content. The real problematic violation is in . Now that is indiscriminate listing.
 * 👍 List of Linux Mint releases maps each version to Ubuntu version and there is content for Ubuntu as I showed you. A good editor should add links to each item in the "Codebase" column.
 * 👎 : Nope.
 * 👍 backs up
 * 👍 supports


 * I agree that this kind of table allows a user to understand the life cycle of the project but not a reader. A reader needs more clue. Also users have changelog delivered to them in newsletters if they want to.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)